tv [untitled] November 24, 2010 7:30am-8:00am PST
almost all of the merchants on the tereval corridor to at least discuss the issue with them -- the taraval corridor to at least discuss the issue with them. i think the potential for danger are not going to play out. one of the specific conditions granted by the planning commission is that the permit for this facility would be up for a rehearing within six months after granting in order to address any specific concerns. that is where i think any of these concerns that were raised by the community should be addressed, in terms of violations alleged and in terms of addressing those complaints. i value the input of the community and i hear what they are saying. mr. schoepp values the input of the community and here's what they are saying. one of the reasons he has opted to move forward with the process
in this situation is because it is an underserved part of the san francisco community. as you saw, the majority of the dispensaries in the city are located downtown. there are none in that district. he has been a member of this community operating a family business for a number of years. his father opened a hardware store in outer richmond. the continue to be an important part of that community on balboa st.. they are attempting to do the very same thing on taraval street at this location. in terms of the issues regarding schools, regarding everything else, the zoning laws are the zoning laws. they are very clear, very specific. in terms of the actual institutions that are located in the immediate vicinity, while i
value the input of what the community is saying, they frankly are not qualified institutions. and in this situation, i do not see that their concerns will actually bear fruit. what do i mean by that? part of what is going to happen with mr. schoepp -- there will be security including cameras as well as a person to maintain the door. part of the actual process will be a walk around the block to check for loitering, to check for litter, and to try to maintain the community presence. it has been part of the process that he has actually attended police commission hearings, spoken directly with the police captain in that district, as well as spoken to the police commissioners to try to address some of the concerns and hear the actual arguments. while i acknowledge there may be
some opposition from the community, i think that it is more appropriately addressed during the rehearing after six months of operation, so that the track record can be evaluated. as indicated by the planning commission reply, as you heard mr. sanchez, there are no complaints on file with planning regarding bay area compassionate health network or mr. schoepp. thank you for your time. i look forward to you approving this permit. commissioner hwang: i have a point of clarification. i understand it is not a rehearing, but the project sponsor could request to extend the hours after six months, provided there are no complaints. i do not think there is an
automatic rehearing. >> let me turn to that text, but i believe that is one of the conditions of use before the actual operation of that facility. commissioner hwang: we can ask the zoning administrator. go ahead. >> to verify, there is not a rehearing. that is correct. there is only a review after six months to determine whether they could have powers beyond what they are conditioned for. commissioner hwang: ok. >> i am sorry. that was my misunderstanding. any other questions? president peterson: i have a couple of questions. is your client a partner now of corn hardware? >> he is the managing operator. president peterson: how is it doing financially? >> it is still operating. the doors are open. every time i visit there, there
is business inside. president peterson: does your client have concerns about this free delivery? i have to confess that hearing about the pre delivery i, as an investor, would be worried about the impact on your client's business. >> there are two issues in terms of free delivery. one is the actual issue of if you are in medical cannabis patient, how comfortable are you calling and contacting someone saying, "please come to my house so that i can invite you into my house and have an exchange of cash for marijuana"? some individuals will be happy with that. a lot will be concerned about inviting a stranger into their home to conduct that transaction. president peterson: we do that with pizza, so i guess -- >> the pizza delivery man does not walk inside. >> please quiet down, thank you. >> the pizza delivery man does not walk into your door.
the second issue in terms of delivery is a large number of delivery services have a marked vehicle that says some version of delivery on the side of it. while i am not a police officer, that would create concerns if you were driving around the vehicle of a delivery related service, seeing them parked in front of someone's house. there are a certain number of conclusions that can be drawn from what is going on there. much like your pizza analogy, you would jump to the conclusion that that person likes pizza end eats pizza. if you have a delivery truck parked in front of your house, it makes a suggestion regarding medical marijuana. friendly, there are a lot of patients who have privacy issues concerning that. in terms of delivery, i sit on the medical care of this task force in the city. the task force is under the process of trying to develop how they are born to regulate delivery service. one of the primary concerns is that there are a lot of businesses outside the city and
county of san francisco providing delivery in the city that is unregulated and the city is not receiving the benefit of any of those taxes. in terms of delivery, it is a very strange situation. it is a bit of a gray area as to how it will operate. it is one of those things that is still being taken under review and submission. there will be new laws and guidelines suggested to regulate the delivery services. article 33 currently does not really provide regulation for delivery, and kind of skirts around that issue. >> [inaudible] president peterson: only if it is entering a question. i think your council did a great job. thank you. >> anything else? president peterson: mr. sanchez?
>> scott sanchez, planning department. just to reiterate again, there are two issues that have been raised by the appellants -- whether or not the project is code complying. using their arguments would change how we review mcds in san francisco. if we were to consider child care facilities, which are a separate definition in the planning code -- and we do have many definitions in the planning code. it would be common to refer to one definition for one use and another for a different use. the important thing we look at is how we would process the application. the chapter facility we will process as a child care facility in planning code. we will not process it as something else. we will not process it as a social service. i think that is an important part to make. this is a code compliant project. we did review it against the requirements of the planning code for the 1,000 foot
requirement. we did not find that there were any facilities with of the defis that are prohibited in the code. in reference to the error in the code, it is an error in the planning code, referring to a code section that does not exist. it was repeated several times in the case report in error, but it was just repeated what the planning code said. we are working to correct that. the first issue -- it is code complying, properly viewed in that way. the second issue, the broader issue here, and probably what this board will want to consider, is the impact on the neighborhood. that is within the discretionary authority of this board. it was not within the discretionary authority of the planning commission. the planning commission had a -- the had to find exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to
justify it not accepting this. the commission found there were not exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. it was noted it was going to be a neighborhood-serving use. the nearest is 7.3 miles away. they put a couple of troubled times on there. there is no clear indication how easy it is to find parking around those facilities, or how good that data is. there are probably facilities within a half hour drive, with time allowed for parking. the delivery that is available -- there is at least one delivery-only mcd in san francisco. there are others that sir san francisco that are located of the city. -- that serve as san francisco that are located out of the city. it is my understanding this
storefront has been vacant for several years. it also provide a secure storefront, eyes on the street. one cannot argue you would have decreased security by having an occupied building with security cameras. one could argue it is an improved security situation to what would be there currently with a vacant storefront. three trading again, the commission did not find exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to deny the permit. they did condition the hours of operation monday through friday from 9:00 to 8:00. they said after six months they could request that the zoning administrator allow them to operate until 10:00 p.m. monday through friday. that is to be clear there. i am available for any questions. thank you. vice president goh: good to talk about -- could you talk about the muni stop being ada or not?
>> i do not know. i would assume the testimony of the member of the public who said it is not a ramped stop. there are requirements that the facility itself be accessible. president peterson: mr. sanchez, if i can go back to 790, section b, tommy how a community facility that primarily serves persons under 18 years of age is not a day care? >> excuse me? president peterson: you know the language. a secondary school or community facility that primarily serves persons under 18 years of age. >> 790.141 section b? president peterson: it is the latter part, the following the
language concerning schools. or secondary school, public or private, or community -- >> we have a separate and specific definition for child care. there is no reference in the code anywhere to community facility. president peterson: what is the definition of a community facility that primarily serves persons under 18 years of age? >> would look under the assembly and social service. the community facility and recreation building -- it meets the definition of social service. it is included in that. but by the definition as a social service, not a child care facility, under 790.50a. i can put it on the overhead again. can i have the overhead, please?
this is not quit working as well. -- not quite working as well. it provides social or fraternal gathering recreational services to the community -- a clubhouse, lodge, meeting hall, or community facility. it also includes an enclosed recreation area not publicly owned. separate line item b, child care, which provide service by licensed personnel. honestly, if these uses were to come in for applications, we would not process them as community services. we would apply the planning code
and say you are a child care facility. that is how we would process it. president peterson: do you cap community facilities or have it defined? in language, this reading is broad. i am just telling you that i have to define it. the second thing is that if you have this typo of subsection f, it does mean it could have been any of the other sections, right? >> we have to call upon the intent of the code. child care center is not included as a prohibited use within 1,000 feet of the mcd in any of the other planning code sections. go to article 2. go to article 8. it does not say you cannot be within 1,000 feet of each health care center. this is a code section that has been reviewed as in error.
there is an error in having code section f. it has been applied. there are precedents. we have approved facilities under this as well. president peterson: all right. thank you. vice president goh: i have a question related to that. did the planning commission notice there was a reference to f? >> i do not believe the issue was raised. vice president goh: thank you. >> commissioners, if there are no further questions, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: i can start. usually, i am one of the commissioners who asks questions, but i did not in this
particular instance for two reasons. one is i was curious enough to go back and look at the tape on the planning commission hearing. lucky for me, i was able to use the fast-forward button. i did not have to do the same thing that most participants would have gone through. again, reading the briefs and listening to the presentations there, i think the issues have stayed the same. they are quite wide. and in terms of where i would approach this, i think there is a certain focus that is impacting my own decision making on this particular case.
and that is -- the focus is twofold. one is the specific code itself and how we interpret that, and whether i concur with the planning department staff and commission interpretation of that. secondly, whether i feel that the intent of that particular code also was conformed to in the decisions that we saw. in my opinion, i do not find that the decision matched both the language of the code section and, more importantly, its intent. i believe that the uses that are in this specific area satisfied
the prohibition within 1,000 feet. commissioner hwang: i would like to acknowledge the speakers and presenters, the lawyers, and the zoning administrator for excellent presentations today. i think the arguments raised were compelling on both sides. i want to make clear before i give you my thinking that i do not have any issues with mcds. i think they are a needed type of business for san francisco at large. i have similar concerns with respect to the code. i think there is enough room within my reading of the code sections that are relevant to argue, as the appellants have, that the types of entities that exist within the 1,000 feet
impact would make an mcd in this location not appropriate. secondly, the outpouring of the community is also very compelling here. this is clearly a concern for the public in this particular community, and i think that way is strongly in my thinking -- weighs strongly in my thinking that the appeal should be granted. vice president goh: i do support mcds and think there is a need for them in the city. however, our charge year for the board of appeals is to consider the impact of any development on the surrounding community and the adjacent properties. we have seen here today a really profound showing of what this particular district, this particular neighborhood, thinks about this business.
i was impressed -- i will not say suede -- by the seven eleven owner who came forward and said that the mcd owners claimed he supported their business when he says he does not. the lack of a feeling of trust from the community toward them -- toward the project sponsor i think was represented by that. i do think the public process was flawed at the planning commission with the lack of having a translator. and i agree with what has been said so far about the other organizations within the 1,000 feet. i also think that edgewood being outside of that by 50 feet -- that is two houses, basically,
outside the perimeter. that is an important consideration given that ed would is a treatment center. so i would -- given that edgewood is a treatment center. so i would support revocation. president peterson: i th mr.anank mr. schoepp for his investment in our community. i support crown hardware. i do worry that we have sufficient supply here in the city. you may have gotten from my questioning that the plain language of the statute would seem to me that the mcds are not to be built within 1,000 feet of facilities catering to children, no matter how you get there. it is not well worded, the statute. it is confusing.
the fact that there is a typo is concerning in a significant piece of legislation. i would concur with my fellow commissioners and i would move to uphold the appeal and overturn the issuance of the permit. bindings to follow. -- findings to follow. >> before you call the roll, i want to once again thank the volunteer translators. >> the motion is from the president to revoke the permit. [applause] quiet. commissioner fung: wait a minute. >> quiet. the motion is to revoke the permit with findings at a later date. president peterson: please try
to respect everyone's opinion here. commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the boat is 4-0. the permit is revoked. president peterson: can w>> wous back inde? president peterson: we are going to resume the meeting. please call 6. >> appeal 10-077. it is the appeal of a denial on june 30, 2010 of eight ramp
taxicab the nile. mr. murray and the appellate have agreed the public should go first because he has to leave. >> is that ok? president peterson: ok. >> a good evening. i am medallion # 239, royal taxi. i have worked three years as a cabdriver. i know mr. farid omar about 15 years. he worked with me almost 15 years. if i have a vacation or am sick, or something like that, he covers me with a cap.
-- cab. he has worked with other companies, too. he is a hard worker. he is a good man, a family man. he applied for it. thank you. president peterson: thank you. mr. murray? hopefully our issue will be more brief than the last one. this is a relatively simple matter. it is -- i am sorry. jervis murray. mr. omar applied for a medallion and was denied his permit, primarily because he has not fulfilled his full-time driving
requirement. it is that simple. even by his own count, which was in the opening brief, where they say in 2005 he spent 77 ships, 2006, 76 ships, and 2008, 84 shifts, he would not have made a requirement for more than two out of the last four years. there is a question about whether or not mr. omar has been in the industry. he made drive a little bit, but the burden is on him to prove to us that he drove, and not for us to prove to anyone else that he drove. it is up to mr. omar to keep these records and to deliver his records accordingly in order to obtain a permit. the permit is not an entitlement. i recognize mr. omar has been on the list a long time, but it is
not an entitlement. it is something he must work to obtain. as far as the test is concerned, each medallion applicant is given a test. they are all given a basic texaco driving test. the get three opportunities to take the exam and mr. omar failed all three times. there are claims that test should be irrelevant, but i think that goes to the heart of whether you know what you are doing being a taxicab driver. there are only so many ways we can get to know what you know about driving on the streets. that test is one of those ways. if someone sends a location to you, you do not want to get a complete later on that drivers do not know where they are going. that is the type of complaint we tend to get regarding this issue. this is not irrelevant. it is actually an important
point in order to maintain a medallion. finally, i do not want to go into details regarding the brief. i think the brief summers up everything relatively well. there was an issue regarding mr. omar's airport transaction. his bills will typically have an sfo trip, if not several. smart cars were introduced to sfo the summer of 2007, in june 2007. you can get good data. in order to pick up anyone from the airport, he must use their smart card to enter into the airport terminal. you do not need a smart card to drop off at the airport. if you are dropping someone off at the airport, you can drop them off at departures and exit without a smart card. however, if you want to pick up a person, you